Slashdot Mirror
Why Scott Adams Wished Death On His Dad
theodp writes " I hope my father dies soon," Dilbert creator Scott Adams wrote Saturday in a frustrated, angry, and poignant blog post. 'My father, age 86, is on the final approach to the long dirt nap (to use his own phrase). His mind is 98% gone, and all he has left is hours or possibly months of hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed. I'll spare you the details, but it's as close to a living Hell as you can get. If my dad were a cat, we would have put him to sleep long ago. And not once would we have looked back and thought too soon. Because it's not too soon. It's far too late. His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering. Rarely has money been so poorly spent. I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.' Adams also had harsh words for those who would oppose assisted suicide, 'I don't want anyone to misconstrue this post as satire or exaggeration. So I'll reiterate. If you have acted, or plan to act, in a way that keeps doctor-assisted suicide illegal, I see you as an accomplice in torturing my father, and perhaps me as well someday. I want you to die a painful death, and soon. And I'd be happy to tell you the same thing to your face.' His father passed a few hours after Adams wrote his screed. Challenged later by the SF Chronicle's Debra J. Saunders, an opponent of assisted suicide, Adams stood firm on his earlier words. So, can Adams succeed in convincing the U.S. where Dr. Jack failed?"
This is one of those things were I think it should be legal (free will) but only if the person left instructions stating so in their will. "I, So and So, being of sound mind, state that if I'm ever in a coma with less than 1% chance of coming out of it (by the doctor's judgements) do so hereby state that I wish to be 'put down'" or some such.
"I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too."
"If you're a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out."
I'll attribute most of this to personal pain... but seriously, Scott needs to dial it back a notch. When you go into threats of killing someone, your political discourse has gone way too far.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
My dad degraded to the point where I just went crying to my (now) wife and told her I felt terrible but I just wanted him to die. (And long before that I wished that we had universal health care so it wouldn't have gotten to this point).
He ended up dying Thanksgiving day at home while trying to make it to the bathroom. But unlike Scott's dad there was no hospital, no hospice prolonging anything. However it got to the point where I honestly started looking into trying to get morphine such that it'd make his final days a bit easier.
In that situation, I'll kill my wife or she will kill me. Otherwise I wouldn't have married her.
I am not sure what she'll do after but I am positive I'll commit suicide after killing her.
I've lived something close to what Mr. Adams describes and I now need such certainties to live in peace.
For the most part, while there are exceptions, active suicide is almost unnecessary for someone in a grossly debilitated state. As a physician, I both have a living will and my family is well-informed that if I ever lose the ability to function mentally, in a way that is not reversible, I am not to receive ANY life-prolonging treatment. That means no artificial hydration, no feeding, and no antibiotics. Many of my physician colleagues have made similar arrangements. That's why MDs are the group in the population with the lowest end-of-life cost. While a surrogate or healthcare proxy may not make a decision to end a life, they are certainly within their rights to do the abovementioned, unless a person's living will specifically forbids it. In general, this means a person will pass away within days. For the most part it allows the family time to fly in, and make peace with the inevitable.
Saunders's response was rather confusing, esp the closing "Me, I don't want to live in a world where one group of people decides when another group should die."
I guess it is not oppression as long as the choice you want is the one being mandated.
People should have the right to die, and more so, people should have the right to pass on that right to someone they know in the event they are unable to make that decision.
Deaths such as that are absolutely agonising not only for the person, but for the people around them.
It solves NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. It is, as he said, quite literally legal torture. Fucking prisoners of war got less than that!
No, they aren't going to pull a fucking cure out of their ass for most reasons someone is slowly dying like that, be is degenerative diseases of the brain or cancer slowly devouring them away or the countless others.
If they found a cure for cancer literally right now, you'd still probably die from an already active cancer simply because of how long it would take for it to go in to not only phase1 trials, but actual public use. (given it was going to kill you in the first place that is)
Yes, there are a billion and one legal loopholes that would need to be fixed, but that can be dealt with IF IT WAS ACTUALLY LOOKED IN TO.
But no, too many religious nutjobs in government will prevent such a thing.
Thanks, jebustards.
It sucks because most religious people in general are pretty sensible and just use religion as guidance, but these fucktards ruin it for everyone else.
He was wishing that his father would be out of misery and is a proponent of assisted suicide. He saw his father suffer and become little more of a shell. The "wish" was as much for himself as for his father.
And, he's right...if it were an animal, we'd have "put it to sleep" to ease its suffering.
We get so caught up on religious dogma and how this would be murder or suicide that we forget the person is a human being being forced to live an existence they wouldn't choose for themselves.
The other week, my mother's partner or 13 years suffered a stroke and was on life support. Thankfully, in our state, they support the concept of a living will - it gave her the authorization to take him off of life support. She waited until confirmation by multiple doctors on his prognosis. It was difficult. He has zero higher brain function and was being kept alive artificially with zero probability of recovery. He was 86. She authorized the removal of the machines and feeding tubes...just IV and pain meds (seems he was experiencing pain at some level). In 3 days, he passed peacefully.
My mother is a religious and moral person - but, she feels it morally wrong to keep someone in that state, given their expressed wishes prior, alive for the sake of keeping them alive. If he had a soul, it passed when his brain function ceased. His body was just a shell. And, she felt he was in a better place.
If you haven't heard "The Bitter End" segment from Radiolab, I highly recommend a listen: http://www.radiolab.org/story/262588-bitter-end/
I'm in favor of someone having the right to end their own life, but I do have a concern about how easily "I don't consider my life worth living and want to die" will morph into "We don't consider your life useful and want to kill you".
By this reasoning, there should be people wishing death on anyone who ever voted (directly or indirectly) for a policy which causes people to suffer.
And if you're about to point out that the opponents of every policy claim that the policy causes people to suffer, you are of course right.
You don't usually see people whose sons die in Iraq claiming that anyone who voted for George Bush needs to die, and when you do, they're considered nutcases.
I've always strongly believed in any adult's legal right to commit suicide (either via their own hand, or at the hand of a proxy at their request). I saw one of my relatives go with Alzheimer's and I *never* EVER want to go that way myself. There is nothing more undignified than losing your mind. And I (and everyone else) should be allowed to have a living will to specify that I be put down in such a circumstance.
If Johnny Bible-thumper wants to live like than because he thinks Jesus wants him to, then that's his choice. But it's not mine. And it shouldn't be forced on me just because a bunch of senators need Johnny Bible-thumper's support to get re-elected.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Ha, here is a question to Adams: why did not his father make such arrangement when his mind was still with him? Is it possible he did not want to die by his own or anyone else's help? Perhaps he himself has religious or moral problems with that? Do whatever da fark you want, but don't make decisions for anyone else, even if they are your family. You really have no moral or ethical right to determine anyone else's right to live.
Oregon has legal assistant suicide, the first in the nation to have these laws. You can plan and die peacefully in Oregon with your choice of a death cocktail.
I have 10 grams of coke hidden in my house. My dad suffered tremendously during his last weeks of life. I've seen it with my own eyes. If I'm ever in that situation, I've instructed my family to overdose me with the coke. They'll have plausible deniability (I was a junkie who wanted his dose). As for me, they say the first hit is better than an orgasm, and with 10 g, it'd also be my last, so I'd go in style.
Of course, if I'm conscious and able to, I'll do the coke myself if I have to...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
You don't know until you have gone through this yourself. I just did - twice within months, once for my Mother who died in home hospice and again for my Father about 5 months after she passed. I went through it alone, even though a sibling lived only 2 miles away from them. You can't imagine watching someone you love, someone you owe your whole world to waste away in this fashion. I was lucky enough that both were cognitive right up until the end; for me it was the only saving grace in all this that I could at least still communicate and interact with them up in until a day or two before each passed. I can't fathom the pain Adams went through in his situation. I understand fully why he said what he did and where it came from. To those who think they know better, be careful becuase karma has a way of administring harsh lessons of reality.
My name is Scott Adams. You didn't kill my father. Prepare to die.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
How ironic that a doctor doesn't want "extraordinary measures". It is like a car mechanic who says "take it to the scrap heap" rather than opting to replace the engine or transmission on his '57 Chevy.
That's a silly comment. Extraordinary measures are fine, as long as they accomplish something. Hence the word "reversible" in my original post. If all "extraordinary measures" (by which I assume you mean enteral feeding, mechanical ventilation, etc) are doing is keeping a shell physically alive, that's not at all equivalent.
The equivalent would be keeping a car that's been crushed in a press in your garage for sentimental reasons.
I don't know. But if he had left that one sentence out of his treatise\tirade, his argument would have been more convincing to opponents... perhaps. This is an emotional subject, but the discussion needs to be level-headed and practical.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This is just the kind of statement that we need these days to stop the deterioration of this country into the quagmire of idiocracy. I used strong words in a post against the creationists here yesterday and got modded down into oblivion. Enough with the feelings of the masses, and enough with being polite. We need some strong and nasty clue bats to wake up this country to start using their minds again instead of their "feel goods."
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Living wills only allow people to specify they don't want treatment under some circumstances.
They don't help if you are in a state where you body is slowly dying without treatment.
I've had the unpleasant opportunities to watch a number of relatives and neighbors spend their last months tortured by the medical profession. I really can't find a more appropriate word, even though everyone involved means well. It is hard for both families and medical providers to assert that sometimes the best thing that can be done is nothing.
Assisted suicide is only part of the issue, but perhaps it is where the conversation needs to begin. It is an option exercised millions of times each day on every animal except Humans as being more humane. However the conversation needs to continue from that point. I think of my 90 year old neighbor who had cancer. A type that if he was 30 surgery and treatment would have cured. One doctor wanted to operate, the other did not saying he would not make it. The family, ever hopeful, pushed for the surgery. What transpired after that was 5 weeks of torture. He did not do well in the surgery. Doped up in a hospital bed his wounds became infected, requiring another surgery. That necessitated a feeding tube, which then due to his poor condition also was infected. Finally after 5 weeks he was barely well enough to go home with 24x7 nurse care where he was able to somewhat peacefully pass away a few days later. The options here were all bleak, spend 3-4 months dying of painful cancer. Spend 5 weeks in the hospital undergoing multiple surgeries, doped up beyond belief. Assisted suicide, at the right time, might have been a good option. I have no idea what bills the family was left with as a result of all of this treatment, but I bet they added further pain after the fact.
End of life care is not a simple decision. Everyone involved, patient, family, doctors needs to realize we can't extend life forever. They need to realize that sometimes doing nothing is a better option than doing something, or that sometimes the something to do is to go ahead and choose to end life on the patients terms.
While for me this is 99.99% a moral and ethical issue, it is also a cost issue. For many patients more money is spent on their final month of medical care than in their entire life, because of these sort of heroic measures that lead to tragic outcomes. Fortunately I don't think saving money needs to be the primary concern here, but rather it can be a happy accident of doing the morally right thing.
Yeah, God forbid the people who want everyone else to live long and suffer be exposed to the same fate. What an asshole!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Fuck all I can't believe the political shit people are spouting.
THE PPACA AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
It is simply giving the same consideration to their family members that they would a dog.
Not so. My grandfather had an interesting thing happen, where his intestine started dying by inches. They tried excising the dying bits, but the rest kept dying too. So, palliative care.
They were quite frank about the fact that he was in enough pain that no painkiller they had would work on him. He was drugged into utter unconsciousness, yet still his face was spasming with pain. Yet when I suggested maybe they just up the dose, they said 'Any more would kill him.' 'Well, doctor,' I said, 'what are his chances?' 'None,' they said. 'He will die within a week. There's nothing we can do.' 'Exactly,' I said. And they looked at me like I was a monster, while they did everything they could to prolong his death. Not his life, his death.
Yet if I treated my dog that way, I'd be up on animal cruelty charges.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Except that Scott Adams has no power to make these people suffer the fate his father suffered. But these people, by their advocacy, do have the ability to ensure that others will suffer the way his father did.
The wish and the deed are quite different.
If the person doesn't want it, they have the ability to create a living will (advance healthcare directive) and to designate someone with a durable power of attorney for healthcare.
That's not the same thing as having the right to pull the plug on someone. Furthermore many people are not able to create a living will. Children and those who are legally considered not competent or incapacitated (think coma) cannot authorize such a document. Furthermore while living wills and similar directives are a very good idea, they aren't appropriate for all circumstances and all people.
No need for $8000/month. A natural death can follow quickly, especially if your order says to give you no food or water.
I've had to watch close family die in exactly this manner through hospice. I wouldn't call it a quick death and it certainly isn't a particularly pleasant way to die. Basically the person is drugged up with opiates and they starve to death. I have nothing but respect for hospice and the service they provide but when the best they can do is let a person starve to death, that is to my mind needlessly cruel.
From from reading the woman's rebuttal, it sounds like at least some of their concern comes from the worry that people other then the patient would opt for suicide or people would take advantage of a suggestible, easily pressured, or outright not in their right state of mind person and have them sign the papers.
So while I think they are overblowing the risk, I can see where they can worry that such a system could be abused against a rather vulnerable population. The closest example I could think of would be something like sex with children, protecting a vulnerable group from actions of more cognizant people when their own mental facilities are impaired or undeveloped.
I've taken more old people to the hospital than I can count over the years. Most, of course, want to go. Others, however, are nearing the end of their lives and know it. They don't want any intervention and are only going because their family is pressuring them. Often we are called to just get them out of the house before they die there. Some patients have even begged me to just shoot them. What ever happened to our society where people can't accept that we all are going to die? What's wrong with dying at home in the same way we've done for ever? Obviously if someone is in the hospital there is something of an obligation to "do something" especially with a bunch of unrealistic relatives there bothering the doctors and nurses. I'm not particularly in favour of assisted suicide, however I'm very much in favour of making someone very comfortable with large doses of pain medications (morphine, marijuana, anything that works) until they take their last breath. Dying is not easy and I've recently had to go through the death of one of my parents. It was heart wrenching. But it was even worse seeing my loved one take too long to die. It was his choice to extend his life and it wasn't my place to interfere (much). But if I were in his place I never would have gone down that path. I would have taken the faster, natural way and let nature take its course without any life-extending interventions. Fortunately his health costs were covered but they amounted to near a $100,000 which would have left my mother in a bad state if she had had to pay that. I don't know how people can take from their survivor's estates to merely put off the inevitable and at the same time inflict torture on the patient in question. I've never understood the selfishness involved in keeping someone alive at ridiculous expense, taking up a hospital bed that could better be used by someone who really needs it, and torturing their loved one at the same time. I know people who think it's the thin edge of the wedge before the pressure is on to kill all the "old and useless", but I think that's a really weak argument against letting people die with dignity.
why should his celebrity make me care about his opinion any more than I care about that of some random guy on the street?
Because celebrities tend to have an audience, and with that audience might be able to bring about change.
If he has never expressed a desire to die rather than go on living in pain, then it isn't anyone else's decision to end his life.
It becomes someone else's decision when he can no longer speak for himself. We decide to let people die all the time who have never expressed any thoughts on the matter. Talk to any hospice worker and they'll clue you in. I had an aunt who we had to place in hospice care and basically decide to let her die. They essentially drugged her up with opiates to keep her comfortable while she starved to death. It was the most merciful thing we could do for her that was legal. Fortunately we had a medical power of attorney through my mother but it very much was the family's decision to make. Happens every day all around the globe.
Furthermore there are many people who are unable to legally or physically express a desire to die. Children, the mentally incompetent, those who are incapacitated etc. Some people are never able to speak for themselves legally.
And as for the talk of torture, if he truly was as far gone as the article claims it's unlikely that he was actually experiencing any of that pain.
You have virtually NO information regarding specifics of the medical situation facing Mr. Adams father. For you to glibly declare that he wasn't experiencing any pain is insulting and arrogant and almost certainly incorrect. You weren't there and you don't know the details and I'm guessing you aren't a medical professional either. (if you are I hope you never treat me) Maybe he wasn't mentally there anymore but that doesn't mean he wasn't suffering or in pain.
...you can expect a really, really long jail sentence. And the health care in those for-profit prisons sucks.
No, you can expect no death benefits, insurance payouts, pension or anything else to the family you leave behind.
We have this unexplainable, sometimes completely irrational, and certainly short-sighted view of life. About half of all medical spending in the United States is spent in the last weeks of life, often just keeping a warm body alive long after the mind and soul have vacated it. Yet, as long as there is a warm pile of mushy innards there exotherming energy away, there will always by that crying, screaming, irrational family member (usually a woman) insisting that the mind and soul will return some day, if only everyone around would kneel and bow their heads to some fictitious diety.
What is it about human beings that gets them so unnecessarily attached to ugly bags of mostly water that will continue to exotherm away as long as a machine pumps oxygen into them?
I share Scott Adams' frustration with "the system." Really, the only opponents there are to assisted suicide, besides irrational relatives, are nursing homes, assisted living centers, and other charlatans, leeches, and vultures that will prey on your loved one's body until it can no longer convert chemical energy to heat. These are enormously wealthy corporations that steal BILLIONS of dollars from real, living, productive people just to keep bodies warm. They don't want to lose that income stream, and politicians certainly don't want to preside over losing those jobs.
So, we will never, EVER have assisted suicide. Ever. There will never, EVER be a humane and decent way to end one's life with dignity, respect, and calm acceptance. As long as irrational people can vote, and as long as there are billions of dollars to be fleeced from the estates of old people, the prohibition on assisted suicide will continue unabated.
Why? Because the entire nation is obsessed with that very issue now, and it's relevant. Sure, he has enough money that he could pay for his dad's care for the rest of MY lifetime, but that's not the point. $8,000/month wasted is $8,000/month wasted.
Says who, exactly?